8 th June 2009EA TRS Study Consortium1 Enterprise Architecture TRS Dissemination Workshop Overview of Study Results & Recommendations presented by Ian.

8th June 2009 EA TRS Study Consortium 1

Enterprise Architecture TRSDissemination Workshop

Overview of Study Results & Recommendations

presented by

Ian RockliffeBAA – Enterprise Architecture

on behalf of the EA TRS Study Consortium


The TRS in context

Findings & Recommendations

Conclusions and Summary

Introduction & Presentation overview


TRS in Context


TRS in Context

E.A. & SOA to Define, Design, Develop & Manage?

Bottom-up hasn’t worked work?

Piecemeal replace failed to produce?

Approaches to-date not delivered?

Fragmented and difficult to Change?

Why

• Enterprise Architecture Approach• Service Driven• Technology as an enabler

So obviously a new approach will work!!


We are Not Alone!

Duplicated functionality / data

Sharing ….data, function, service

Reduction of cost

Rate of change

Common Decisions and Understanding

Unmanageable (& unimaginable?) complexity

Significant business targets

Governance

Filling the execution gap

TRS in Context


Governance

Common understanding

Joined –Up Architecture

Inter-operability

Strategic / Business Architecture

Service Based Approach

TRS in Context

Find the Themes


Findings and Recommendations


Airspace Users

AirportOperator

ANSP

ATM Performance Partnership

Business relationships

Process & service

relationships

Operational Processes

[D2]

[D3]

[D6]Systems &

service relationships

Organisational (Unit)

Structure

ApplicationServices

Systems

[D4]

[D7]

ConceptualInformation

Model

Operational (Business) Services

Operational (Business)

Goals

Information Services

Information Model

[D1]

[D5]

[D8]

PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DELIVERABLES D1 TO D8



Direction of study set by the TRS Strategic Business Aspects Approach and Method Frameworks Information Operational and Application Services Systems



Findings• Architecture Layers - levelling• Lack of Strategic emphasis

Recommendations• Criticality of Governance• O.I. as solutions

Direction of Study set by TRS


Airspace Users

AirportOperator

ANSP



Process & service

relationships


[D2]

[D3]

[D6]Systems &



Structure

ApplicationServices

Systems

[D4]

[D7]


Model



Goals


Information Model

[D1]

[D5]

[D8]

Strategic Business Aspects



Findings

• Goal modelling is hierarchical and requires modelling and exploration

• Limited strategic coverage

Recommendations

• Goal modelling must be comprehensive and rigorous

• Parallel and iterative working• Capabilities as functions

Strategic Business Aspects


TRS in Context

Input provided by Euro-Control

Range of Expert Knowledge available

Lack of widespread ‘Enterprise’ experience and thinking in ATM

Where to start

Approach & Method - Where to Start


Outline of Approach Taken• At Training Workshop, Eurocontrol presented some initial results of their work

on Strategic, Operations & Systems aspects

• Material presented suggested work was most mature on Operations aspects

• Decided to start “middle-out” from development of Operational Processes & subsequently, drawing out the Operational & Information Services

Operational (Business) Goals



Systems

Concept Information

Model

Information Model


Organisational (Unit) Structure

“Middle-out Starting Point”

Application Services


Findings and Recommendations Findings

• Aid to understanding• Governance• Architecture v Design• Not enterprise approach• Lessons for Management Control

Recommendations

• Small groups of focused activity• Agreed Meta-Model• Take an Enterprise Approach• Service based approach to be

used• Integrated Goal Modelling

Approach and Method



• Scope more important than which framework

• Reference Architecture v Views• Capabilities as the missing link?• Close Relationship of views

Recommendations

• Framework is not methodology• High level reference required• Services before systems• Capabilities as the missing link!• Invariant Reference architecture

Frameworks


Airspace Users

AirportOperator

ANSP



Process & service

relationships


[D2]

[D3]

[D6]Systems &



Structure

ApplicationServices

Systems

[D4]

[D7]


Model



Goals


Information Model

[D1]

[D5]

[D8]

Information & Information Services



• Lack of meaningful guidance• Significant aid to understanding• Iteration and Dependency• Operational Knowledge req’d• Levelling, complexity and control• Invariant information

Recommendations

• Info. Model - Mandatory Deliverable• Use and place confirmed• Collective memory• Basis for collaboration and inter-

operability

Information & Information Services

Description – Exchange - Context


Airspace Users

AirportOperator

ANSP



Process & service

relationships


[D2]

[D3]

[D6]Systems &



Structure

ApplicationServices

Systems

[D4]

[D7]


Model



Goals


Information Model

[D1]

[D5]

[D8]

Operations & Application Services



Findings

• Operational Service Levelling• Difference between Ops and

Apps. Service• Service and System linkage

required business input• Limited Effort providing early

views

Recommendations

• Apps Service Confirmation• Joined up architecture

Operational and Application Services


Airspace Users

AirportOperator

ANSP



Process & service

relationships


[D2]

[D3]

[D6]Systems &



Structure

ApplicationServices

Systems

[D4]

[D7]


Model



Goals


Information Model

[D1]

[D5]

[D8]

PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN DELIVERABLES D1 TO D8



• Dependent on well defined services

• Time constraints impacted

Recommendations

• Services to be defined prior to systems view creation

Systems


Conclusions & Summary



Governance, planning and Management are key

Inter-operability starts with the business not technology

Flexibility, agility and Governance enabled by Services

Information critical to success

E.A. & Service based approach should be used for EATMS – with caveats

Framework and principal activities

The study was a success? Discuss



Bite sized

Iteration and Parallel work

Delivering Services & Process not Technology

Planning Reflects this

Customer Control

Governance, Planning and Management are Key



Need for a Business Architecture: Vision, Capability, Process, Service

Iteration and Parallel work

Resonate through SESAR and the tiers of architecture

Inter-Operability Starts at the Business Level



Current and future served equally

Iteration and Parallel work Req’d

Removes dependency

Flexibility, Agility, and Governance provided by a service based approach



Need for formally constructed models

Frameworks under consideration are light on Information Architecture

Do not underestimate effort to produce: key to agreements

Information Critical to Success



Holistic and integrated approach for delivery of enterprise goals

Caveats:

- leverage business relationships- leverage ops process / service- business layer required

Top down is not a sequence but a mind set

Measuring performance requires a mechanism not just a list

Use E.A. & Serviced based approach for EATMS – with caveats



Reference v Design

Views serve defined purpose of customer in question

Joined-up architecture

Ref Arch Meta-model 7 guidelines

Relevance of O.I.’s

Introduce Capability

Framework and principal activities



The study was a success?

Discuss

8 th June 2009EA TRS Study Consortium1 Enterprise Architecture TRS Dissemination Workshop Overview of Study Results & Recommendations presented by Ian.

Documents

trs slide

ea trs study consortium4

ea trs study consortium13

ea trs study consortium3

approach trs

ea trs study consortium2

ea trs study consortium5

ea trs study consortium